Last week, after hearing that Errol Morris paid some of the subjects in his new documentary Standard Operating Procedure, The New York Times published an article about the integrity of paying interview subjects in documentary film. Even though the article does explore the complexity of the issue, it also seems to me that the article is fairly against Mr. Morris and his film - the last paragraph and line of the article is very telling:

My own position, he added, is that it shouldn’t be done.(David Paletz) [New York Times]

This article angered me quite a bit. Documentary subjects have been paid for years, in fact I was at an interview with Michael Apted 2 years ago where he admitted that he paid the folks in his 7-Up series. It was the same exact situation as the interview where Morris freely spoke of paying his subjects, the difference being that nobody in the press picked up the story. To decide to publish a story like this in direct connection to a film (instead of as a general study on the topic) immediately starts to discredit the film - and when you’re dealing with a controversial film and something that is a commonplace practice of documentary filmmaking, I can’t help but find the article to be irresponsible.

But enough of me, even though I’m being objective, I obviously write for the company that has helped to release SOP - so I’ll share some from other folks in the blogosphere:

The best response comes from frequent documentary blogger Agnes Varnum, you should read the entire piece, but here are a few telling quotes:

“But documentary isn’t journalism, even if ancillary products like books and articles are produced in conjunction with the film.”

“A filmmaker can spend anywhere from hours to years intruding on the lives of subjects. Frequently, the filmmaker is an economically advantaged person sporting expensive equipment, flights to and from the subjects home, and probably a paid crew. ”

“Why doesn’t The Times talk to the interviewees about why they asked for payments? Or try to find examples of when a subject actually embellished their story? Or what about films that were stymied because a filmmaker refused to pay? Maybe this is asking too much of the journalist, or perhaps the writers couldn’t get substantive comments on this subject, but it is such a complicated issue that it deserves an in-depth discussion. I think the field suffers from articles like this one. People outside of the media industry read this and think that there is a right and wrong, as well as continuing the conflation of documentary and journalism.” [DOC IT OUT]

Over at the Chicago Reader’s ON FILM blog, JR Jones brings up the article and also admits that doc subjects are commonly paid (although he spends more time focusing on The New Yorker articles…)

What do you think? Leave us a comments and let us know…

Also, to see behind the scenes photographs from the film - that I believe speak for themselves.